bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

I think once you achieve a certain level of wealth in a business you'll quickly view any additional money as simply a means of keeping score.

I'd bet if you ask the likes of Musk, Gates, Bezos or Denise Coates what drives them it's not the money. It's being in control off those companies and the challenge of managing and growing them.

I'll wager all of those named and many CEOs were in a position to retire and enjoy their wealth decades ago but decided to continue for the challenge and the hope of further success. As said I'm sure they view the money as simply a means of keeping score.
 
silvagti said:
Again, I'm not suggesting limiting how much these footballers or anyone else can earn. I'm suggesting limiting how much they can be worth which is a cap unlikely to affect many footballers or musicians.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to grasp that you are then limiting how much they can earn in that case. You'd be affecting some of the best musicians and footballers in the world right now.

silvagti said:
I think once you achieve a certain level of wealth in a business you'll quickly view any additional money as simply a means of keeping score.

I'd bet if you ask the likes of Musk, Gates, Bezos or Denise Coates what drives them it's not the money. It's being in control off those companies and the challenge of managing and growing them.
Click to expand...

Something which you'd put an end to. They could change the category of shares they have/grant additional voting rights etc.. if it was only about control though so clearly it is more than that.
 
Imagine putting these people in charge, taking Elon Musks' money away from him that he plans to send humans to Mars so some leftie morons can feel better about achieving nothing in their lives
 
dowie said:
You don't seem to grasp that you are then limiting how much they can earn in that case. You'd be affecting some of the best musicians and footballers in the world right now.



Something which you'd put an end to. They could change the category of shares they have/grant additional voting rights etc.. if it was only about control though so clearly it is more than that.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Ronaldo’s worth half a billion. He’d have to play for nothing with a wealth cap.
 
silvagti said:
I think once you achieve a certain level of wealth in a business you'll quickly view any additional money as simply a means of keeping score.

I'd bet if you ask the likes of Musk, Gates, Bezos or Denise Coates what drives them it's not the money. It's being in control off those companies and the challenge of managing and growing them.

I'll wager all of those named and many CEOs were in a position to retire and enjoy their wealth decades ago but decided to continue for the challenge and the hope of further success. As said I'm sure they view the money as simply a means of keeping score.
Click to expand...

They are an exception i would say, there will be a small percentage that continue to work. But generally speaking, capping how much money you can earn leads to less economic activity basically, because once you hit that cap, you stop creating and doing. There is no point having those responsibilities of running a company on your shoulders.
 
BoyceyLDN said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46289499
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-coates-paid-herself-an-obscene-265m-in-2017


Just wanted GD thoughts on this, is it a case of she earned it so why not? or should there be something in place to stop someone earning so much, i mean i can not think of a reason she can justify her salary, even if you took a 0 of the end and it was 26.5 million that is more money than most will earn in their lifetime.
Click to expand...

Personally I believe that there should be sensible limits. I am not against someone making a lot of money but there are cases of people earning ridiculous amounts. I don't think the limits should be in cash terms, rather there needs to be changes to companies to stop people owning a company. When you think about it, once a company starts to employ people, those people are all contributing to the company so why on earth does just one person get to own something that all the employees helped to build? Sure, they can keep a large chunk, but not all of it. All of it just leads to excess on a grand scale.
 
pp111 said:
Personally I believe that there should be sensible limits. I am not against someone making a lot of money but there are cases of people earning ridiculous amounts. I don't think the limits should be in cash terms, rather there needs to be changes to companies to stop people owning a company. When you think about it, once a company starts to employ people, those people are all contributing to the company so why on earth does just one person get to own something that all the employees helped to build? Sure, they can keep a large chunk, but not all of it. All of it just leads to excess on a grand scale.
Click to expand...

What is a lot of money though? Its pretty subjective
 
Trusty said:
They are an exception i would say, there will be a small percentage that continue to work. But generally speaking, capping how much money you can earn leads to less economic activity basically, because once you hit that cap, you stop creating and doing. There is no point having those responsibilities of running a company on your shoulders.
Click to expand...

It’s funny how people don’t grasp this. Elon slept at the Tesla factory when they were in trouble because he was working such long hours. Why would he do that for no reward, it’s a business not a charity or not for profit org.

Maybe he’d still have an interest in OpenAI still but he’d not have the cash to invest.

A large chunk of those wealth is simply a result of their ownership of companies which have increased in value, they’ve created wealth they’re not hogging resources etc...
 
pp111 said:
Personally I believe that there should be sensible limits. I am not against someone making a lot of money but there are cases of people earning ridiculous amounts. I don't think the limits should be in cash terms, rather there needs to be changes to companies to stop people owning a company. When you think about it, once a company starts to employ people, those people are all contributing to the company so why on earth does just one person get to own something that all the employees helped to build? Sure, they can keep a large chunk, but not all of it. All of it just leads to excess on a grand scale.
Click to expand...

So you'd be happy for some of your salary to be swapped for shares?

Most companies will be more than happy to pay you in shares instead of cash.

Also what has the employee risked exactly?
 
Is it fair to compare the CEO of betting company with a footballer?

Betting destroys people's lives , football doesn't.

Guess it's better than illegal betting.
 
Last edited:
pp111 said:
Personally I believe that there should be sensible limits. I am not against someone making a lot of money but there are cases of people earning ridiculous amounts. I don't think the limits should be in cash terms, rather there needs to be changes to companies to stop people owning a company. When you think about it, once a company starts to employ people, those people are all contributing to the company so why on earth does just one person get to own something that all the employees helped to build? Sure, they can keep a large chunk, but not all of it. All of it just leads to excess on a grand scale.
Click to expand...

What is your proposal regarding the running of every company? If the employees own part of the company, they must have some say in the running of the company. How much say? How would that work? How would it change if the number of employees increases? What if, for example, you'd been with the company since it started and helped to build it from scratch, then I got a job there 10 years later. Should I own as much of the company as you do and have the same say in the running of the company as you do?

There is at least one company in the UK that does run that way. Triangle Wholefoods co-operative (Suma Wholefoods). It has zero hierarchy. Every employee is an equal owner of the company, gets paid the same wage, does whatever work needs doing at the time and has an equal say in running the company. It's pretty strange, but it's been working that way since the 1970s. It has about 200 employee-owners and a turnover of ~£50M. Would that way of doing business scale much higher? I don't think so.
 
pp111 said:
When you think about it, once a company starts to employ people, those people are all contributing to the company so why on earth does just one person get to own something that all the employees helped to build?
Click to expand...

Employee's are paid for their work.

Nothing stopping you from finding a small business, negotiating with the owner, investing into it, or getting a % of ownership as your pay, or making your own.

Being an employee means you get paid for your time, and you have no risk, no stress.

There are plenty of people who have been working for years, for zero pay, either on their own business or as a part owner of it. After covid lockdowns, its basically game over for most of them.
 
platinum87 said:
Employee's are paid for their work.

Nothing stopping you from finding a small business, negotiating with the owner, investing into it, or getting a % of ownership as your pay, or making your own.

Being an employee means you get paid for your time, and you have no risk, no stress.

There are plenty of people who have been working for years, for zero pay, either on their own business or as a part owner of it. After covid lockdowns, its basically game over for most of them.
Click to expand...

Employees get paid, yes, but the boss gets disproportionately more. Why? Because they had the skill set ( or luck ) to start the company. But the boss couldn't have grown the company without good staff.
No risks, no stress? Guess you have never been made redundant then!
It's true that not all of us are the entrepreneurs in this world, but why should such people get paid ten thousand times more than people who are equally skilled but skilled in different areas? And it is ridiculous to assume that people who are not company owners don't work hard. It takes more than one skill to make a big company work. What we are doing at the moment is rewarding certain skills out of all proportion to others.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe that entrepreneurs need to be rewarded for their special skills. I have no issue with people earning millions. But I have real issue with people
earning billions. It is not jealousy. I am not jealous of people who earn millions, why would I of people earning billions? It just seems totally immoral to me. When people in this world slog their guts out to barely earn a living wage, it can not be right that anyone can earn hundreds of thousands or even millions of times what they do, just because they have different skills.
 
pp111 said:
why should such people get paid ten thousand times more than people who are equally skilled but skilled in different areas?
Click to expand...

Well they don't *earn* it like employees do (see next para), but the wealth they accumulate is due to their contribution being worth it. If you don't think that, then fair enough, but it doesn't make it untrue. What you're talking about is interrupting the absolute backbone of capitalism while referencing a handful of super billionaires.

pp111 said:
it can not be right that anyone can earn hundreds of thousands or even millions of times what they do, just because they have different skills.
Click to expand...

As I said... they don't. Musk, Bezos et al are holding the value of the company that has grown, yes, but that doesn't translate to salary like you're implying at all.
 
Two things for pp111

1) Most of these super rich people don't hang on to what they've got, they expand therefore creating more jobs. So if we take Elon Musk, he started doing one thing and then got into the Space Race which has created 1000s of jobs and then there are the jobs that have come off the backbone of their jobs.
Somebody like Tim Martin will just keep opening Wetherspoons, he'll find old buildings and convert them and give people jobs. He obviously likes the money but I would say his big passion is opening up a new pub.

2) If I had a great idea and knew from the start that I could only earn 100 million I would probably still go along with it but then I'd sell the company to my wife for £1 where she can make 100 million and then she can sell to my eldest and so on ...........................
 
Treats staff well, gives to charities, self made, respected etc see no problems, but then you have mega rich who don't give to charities, only respected out of fear and fellow millionaires and don't give two hoots about their staff ie Philip green I'll not use his other title as he is not fit for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom